Originally posted by Amana

Please respond to the actual content of the article and not flame the writer. We will always have content that someone doesn't agree with and that is fine if it's presented in a civil manner.

The thing is that the article actually flames those that don't agree with the writer's PoV by accusing them of simply 'bitching' etc.

Having content that I don't agree with is fine, but the writer needs to watch her tone and how she refers to others IMO.

It shouldn't be acceptable for her to be able to criticise us and dismiss our views with cheap digs and us not be able to return the favour.

Originally posted by Yamota

Soloers are fine, I do it most of the time, but when you have a game that is designed to keep people mostly soloing SW *cough* TOR then there is something fundamentally wrong with it, in regards to MMORPGs.

Yep, soloers ARE fine, I agree. I have soloed at times since I started EQ in '99 and it should always be an option.

It's solo focused game design thats the issue.

Enforcing solo play on some is no better then enforcing groupplay on others. It should be approached with care, and not the solo scorched earth design we have seen in the last few years.

<------ the quote I have under my avatar says it all for me tbh. 

Happily for you, you can easily knock down straw men solo.

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by Vesavius

 Terrible article that accuses the readers that see things differently of 'bitching', as a cheap way of dismissing their perspective, when the whole thing was one long 'bitch'.

MMORPG.com used to be better then this kind of official troll piece.

 

The 'hatred' you dsecribe may well have been due to the fact that soloers have whined these games into a super casual anti-social soulless selfish shells of what they once were.

Well now you've gone and proved the OP is about something that does indeed happen, and deserves a counter which is of the same vitriol.

Players will bitch and moan, some will feel "left out" some will feel it's to hard, etc, etc, etc...

It's up to devs to do what is best even in the face of all of that whining.

  The heavy focus on Solo play doesn't destroy MMOs, it just mutates them and pushes them away from the original design model that started 10+ years ago.  The lack of dependancy on other players to complete content the majority of game content discourages the development of a strong supportive community  which was a core reason many of us "old school" gamers played MMOs in the first place.

  The article was ok I guess but it had a distinct flavor of "excuses" all through it.  There are many different computer games out there and MMOs at their core were designed to be ;  "co-op multilplayer" , "challenging" and  "require a significant time investment".

  The games that solo, casual, attention deprived players want is not an MMO but due to the money they are willing to spend MMO companies mutated the original model to get more cash.   Now the original MMO players are disaapointed that the games they once played are gone and they are left playing games that aren't worthy the title MMO.

woops

I thought grouping up was for protection? U know, safer in numbers. Ohh, that must of been 10yrs ago before mainstream tried to fit everyone in the world into the same damn box - increasing profits ofcourse, but finding out everyone is not the same. Viva the resistounce! Go Inde, save us all from each other. Ohh, wait, real games don't get funded, nevermind. Neocron.

Anyways, blame it on the investors guys, and start pointing some fingers at something tangible, and not at each other. That's just a no win, grey areas of subjectivity are why we goto war.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Its not the fact that they want to be able to solo that ruins games...

 

...its their insistance that EVERY game be centered around them thats screwing things up.

 

You guys are going to have to provide some real world gaming examples of this.

I've never seen an "endemic" gaming-community problem centered around players demanding certain types of challenges be "solo".  To what are you referring to, exactly?

Lets try a test:

Would you say the Henchmen and Hero NPC development dynamic in Guild Wars is an example of "solo play" mechanics gone too far?

Originally posted by TangentPoint

 

With all due respect, Isabelle, through all your ranting in that article you demonstrated one thing to me above all else. You don't seem to actually understand the real issue.

With all due respect, TP, if it's an issue to her...and an issue to other solo'ers who have encountered the "solo'ers are bad, you guys don't even belong in MMOs" attitude then she understands the issue perfectly.  The fact that there are two perspectives to this...more, but certainly two in opposition...doesn't change the fact that she has a good hndle on this issue from her perspective.  And, point in fact, you go to demonstrate that you have basically no respect for her view whatsoever.

You're complaining about all these things that, while common topics of debate, ultimately have nothing to do with how and why those of us who do believe that the focus on soloing has ruined the genre.

You are completely off-mark, Isabelle.

I do want to address at least part of your rant, however, because the irony is too much to pass up.

You go into the common territory of making the pro-soloing argument about "those who started playing 10 or 15 years ago now have kids", and so forth...

And?  Your point would be...?

I'm pretty sure the point here is that while she has less time to game, and with priorities that prohibit dedicated gaming sessions on a routine basis, she still loves the genre and community and still loves to play MMOs, and wants to be able to keep doing that, on her terms.  Without being able to solo the end-game world boss and without the purple shinies that come with that.  And also without people telling her to group or gtfo.

Are you claiming that, because you have a job and children and a social life, that your gaming preferences are superior to others? 

No, and it's not inferior either.

Are you claiming that those who perhaps haven't taken on those responsibilities yet are less deserving of an experience they would thoroughly enjoy, simply because "they haven't grown up yet"?

Nowhere did she ask to nerf grouping or group rewards or to stop designing for group/raid content.  Get off your high horse.   Nowhere did she ask for content to be dumbed down so she can complete group encounters. 

What, exactly, is your point in making that argument, Isabelle?

Her point's not tough to see if you read what she wrote without a bias like you're demonstrating in your response.

What was that you were saying about how all pro-soloers don't have  a sense of entitlement? Congratulations. You just planted yourself firmly in the category of those who do. It doesn't have to do with 'wanting things easy'. "Growing up and taking on more responsibility" does not entitle you to special treatment because you choose to continue playing games that are known to be heavily time-consuming.

She didn't ask for anything for free, she doesn't want anything handed to her, she wants, as a paying customer, to be able to enjoy challenging and rewarding gameplay as a solo'er.  The game studios agree with her, by the way.

And while we're on the topic, who's this "we" you speak of? I thought you were writing a column about your thoughts on the situation, based on your views of it. So where does this "we" come into it? Are you committing the oh-so-often error of presuming to represent or speak for others?

She wrote many of her points well enough that this thread is full of people who have agreed with her.  It only would have taken one of them to make this snide and shrewish remark moot.  So, no, she made no such error.

I fit into the category you describe quite squarely. I'm an adult, have a full-time job, myriad responsibilities, and don't have hours and hours to play MMOs anymore either. Regardless, when I do play, I still prefer a stronger focus on community, dependence on other players and group activities. I know there are others around here (whom may speak for themselves) who do as well.

Bully for you.  And you know, it's perfectly possible for solo'ers to be very involved in the community while not grouping.  Unless you intend to throw most crafters and explorers under the bus I would exersize caution in how you reply here...

I'm going to guess that you value your MMO experiences based on how much you're able to achieve in whatever limited time you have to play. Achievements might be getting a level or two, finishing a quest line, acquiring some new gear, etc. Would my guess be correct?

Did you read what she wrote?  Seems less likely now, based on this comment.  She wrote openly about her assessment scores and that fact that she is not focused on the achiver side of the game.

Assuming it is, and I know that's the case for others, that's where I fundamentally differ from you. For me, I value my time in a game based on how much fun I had doing whatever it was I did for that time. I don't care if it's sitting in one spot, chatting with guild-mates, xp'ing for a bit but not leveling-up, or giving a dungeon a go and failing. If I had fun in the process, then it was time well-spent. I value the experience of playing the game, not "how much did I accomplish while playing it". I don't care if I didn't get that next level, because leveling up isn't my specific "goal". Logging in and having fun doing "whatever" I end up doing, preferably involving other players.

Ah, that word "assume" at work.  You see, you have just pointed out that a solo'er can be experiencing and enjoying the community as well as a grouper and that you did not need to be grouping to enjoy the game experience.  Also, once again, you apparently skipped over the part in her article where she describes her gaming preferences/priorities.

Anyway, it'd be quite easy to pick apart and refute every argument you've made. For one, my stomach is screaming at me to feed it right now. For another, I'm sure others will have already done a fine job of it by now.

The core point is, you should really try to actually understand the point-of-view you're ranting against before you start ranting against it.

You've demonstrated that she understands it just fine, TP....just fine.

 

Originally posted by Vesavius

Yep, soloers ARE fine, I agree. I have soloed at times since I started EQ in '99 and it should always be an option.

It's solo focused game design thats the issue.

Enforcing solo play on some is no better then enforcing groupplay on others. It should be approached with care, and not the solo scorched earth design we have seen in the last few years.

<------ the quote I have under my avatar says it all for me tbh. 

 

I agree for the most part, though puzzled by the very explicit claim of " . . . not the solo scorched earth design we have seen in the last few years."

Be specific.  What games were designed with this model?

In my experience "solo play" is seen when dumbing down a game to promote fast levelling into an expansion's new zones occurs by the devs.

Or, perhaps some classes built with too many capabilities across too many disciplines allowing an inordinate amount of "solo play" other classes struggle with?

Or perhaps a flat out mechanics mess with unfettered gear and stat enhancement abilities that inevitably leads to god-like solo-ers, simply because they can:

WoW:  When Burning Crusades released mobs and challenges across the game world were nerfed into the ground so that content was easier.  Certainly soloable whereas in the original design not so much so.  Examples:  Elites in Stromgaarde, Arathi Highlands, and the Elite Ogres in that ruined town north of Southshore.

LOTRO: Hunters for a long time in that game were so capable they basically ruled maps to high degree.  Including PvE play.  Not only the highest DPS class in the game, but packed with a ton of long-lasting CC in both AoE and single target flavors, with more than enough mitigations to effectively tank off a huge % of the game worlds challenges if actually gotten to.  They eventually were hit with the nerf-bat.

Runes of Magic:  A drug addicts dream.  A completely open-ended gear/stat enhancement paradigm that allowed end-game gear enchants, and "mounting" (Wings) common to high and low level characters, to be put on level 1's.  End game players could then groom "lowbie" twinks to insane heights the likes of which you couldn't believe, particularly if they were nutjobs willing to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of real world dollars in the Cash Shop to complete augmentation.  Broken, and badly.

What game(s) have you played that were DESIGNED around solo play so badly it represents  "scorched earth" magnitude in the industry in general?

Originally posted by Silverbranch

Originally posted by FrostWyrm



Its not the fact that they want to be able to solo that ruins games..



...its their insistance that EVERY game be centered around them thats screwing things up.

 

You guys are going to have to provide some real world gaming examples of this.



I've never seen an "endemic" gaming-community problem centered around players demanding certain types of challenges be "solo".  To what are you referring to, exactly?



Lets try a test:



Would you say the Henchmen and Hero NPC development dynamic in Guild Wars is an example of "solo play" mechanics gone too far?

 

Can you give a 100% iron-clad guarantee that your response or acceptance of any answer given will be treated with completely objective consideration and weighed equally against your own preferences, and not immediately discounted or dismissed if it doesn't fit with your personal point-of-view?

If not, then your "test" is a farce, and indulging it would be a waste of time.

Originally posted by Otomox

Solo players destroy mmoprgs because mmo developer create content for them which they shouldnt those games are meant to be played with other ppl. If you want solo content go back to offline rpgs.

So, because game studios and producers listen to the people spending money on games and develop games designed to attract them it is somehow the consumer's fault?

Go tell the management of the games you play that you have single-handedly forced every solo'er to leave their game and cancel their sub...then see how long you are still playing before getting a lifetime ban. :)

Can you give a 100% iron-clad guarantee that your response or acceptance of any answer given will be treated with completely objective consideration and weighed equally against your own preferences, and not immediately discounted or dismissed if it doesn't fit with your personal point-of-view?

If not, then your "test" is a farce, and indulging it would be a waste of time.

 

Stop assuming things about me and why I asked the question, and partake of a discussion in good faith, as a gamer, as I did.  :D

What is an example of "solo play taken too far" in gaming?  Spit out a TANGIBLE, real example that might actually FOSTER meaningful discussion, instead of slogans and emo.

That's all I was getting at, and why I asked the question, and actually provided an example that could be discussed against.

"Lets try a test:

Would you say the Henchmen and Hero NPC development dynamic in Guild Wars is an example of "solo play" mechanics gone too far?"

No assumptions or "agenda" built into the question, yes?  On topic, clearly stated, no slanted viewpoint or bias attached at the outset. :D

Game on.

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

Allowing solo is allowing a default for the game to be playable/enjoyable in the absence of the above being successfully answered. It could be argued some modern mmorpgs have allowed solo to creep into mmorpgs as de facto rather than default, but that is tangent to the main consideraton it needs be permissible/viable option for positive reasons as Jeff Strain reasons but also for shoulder the deficiency of the above.

 

This brings up an interesting point, at least interesting to me.

The whole "modern MMOs have allowed solo play to creep in"  thing. 

Horse-hockey.  While many people were playing "group or fail" in EQ1, many others were playing in an open-world (no zone walls) largely unstructured mostly sandbox named Asheron's Call.  People like me.  Yes, there was absolutely content that had to be grouped for.  But leveling to max while solo, and obtaining damned good gear along the way, was not only possible but routine.  The community rocked.  (Ok, Darktide was one of the first MMORPG ffa PvP cesspools but hey, some great gaming happened there too) Player-run market towns like Arwic (before it became Charwic) were epic.

So, don't tell me you can't have a great community in a game that can be laregly solo'd.  Tell me you don't know how to do that, because that's what it boils down to.

I play mostly solo now, and my MMOing at the moment is EvE and only EvE.  But I ran a large guild in Asheron's Call, I co-GMd a guild in DAoC, I was a guild officer in many games along the way.  I get community, I enjoy community, and I used to group constantly, now I group when I have to.  I still enjoy the community, and I don't feel that designers need to give me anything I don't earn.  I'm a solo'er now, deal with it.

To all of you "group or gtfo out of my MMOs because you are ruining them!" fanatics:  realize that you are in the minority now, and that you were never the only game in town.   MMOs are now, and have always been, businesses.  If you want a modern, niche, Group or Fail game go convince a small studio to make and run one for you or roll on an EQ classic server.

The genre has moved on, for the most part, and it understands where the money is.  And that's where it's going to go.

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

I don't think the issue has ever been that soloers or casuals destroy games.  Both have existed in MMORPGs from the beginning.

 

The way I see it, the issue is that developers destroy games when they favor solo play to such a large degree that game mechanics for grouping and community interaction are contradicted, removed or gimped beyond usefulness.

How so?

Pretty much any MMO encourages some degree for players to group, if anything the same tools you used before are still in todays games, it's the players who decide if they want to participate the game doesn't do it for you. There is no real right answer for this type of human behavior, yes, behavior. People can list off shit like:

"Anti-social personality disorder"

"The more time a player spends alone on video games, the more that player is becoming isolated from the rest of the world. Basic social functions are forgotten, or have not been fine-tuned with experience."

"The Internet has provided a means for people to communicate, while also providing a means for isolation and anti-social behavior. New technology has introduced both positives and negatives for our society"

DARK SIDE of the INTERNET

But even this still doesn't include players who probably do have good social skills but choose not to use it over the internet.

Originally posted by StoneRoses

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

I don't think the issue has ever been that soloers or casuals destroy games.  Both have existed in MMORPGs from the beginning.

 

The way I see it, the issue is that developers destroy games when they favor solo play to such a large degree that game mechanics for grouping and community interaction are contradicted, removed or gimped beyond usefulness.

How so?

Pretty much any MMO encourages some degree for players to group, if anything the same tools you used before are still in todays games, it's the players who decide if they want to participate the game doesn't do it for you. There is no real right answer for this type of human behavior, yes, behavior. People can list off shit like:

"Anti-social personality disorder"

"The more time a player spends alone on video games, the more that player is becoming isolated from the rest of the world. Basic social functions are forgotten, or have not been fine-tuned with experience."

"The Internet has provided a means for people to communicate, while also providing a means for isolation and anti-social behavior. New technology has introduced both positives and negatives for our society"

DARK SIDE of the INTERNET

 

But even this still doesn't include players who probably do have good social skills but choose not to use it over the internet.

I do not think soloers destroy the games, however I think the fact that soloers are able to gear up to the same degree as groupers and raiders is what ruins the game.  PvP gear is what ruins the games for me personally.  Because, it is an easy way to get comparable (not quite as good but very close) to top end gear. 

Secondly, I feel like the games should focus on grouping over soloing.  Right now they focus on soloing then grouping it should be the other way around.  As it was stated just because it focus on soloing does not mean there is not grouping.  The same goes the other way around, just because it is focused on grouping does not mean you cannot solo. 

Quests, I personally hate them and would prefer quests be a guide rather than a means of xp, but the main reason I hate them is because it is more efficient to solo quests than it is to perform group activities.   

Using the recent SWTOR as an example, the fastest way to level up was primarily to solo.  How?  Most people would follow the class quest and do the quests in the planet their class quest was on.  Additionally, each day they could do space missions (alone) and pvp dailies (alone if they choose) as a quick means to quest xp.

Now for me personally, by the time I hit level 50, I had not even finished my alderaan class quest.  Instead I primarily focused on group flashpoints.  It took much longer, but I did what I enjoyed.  To me the purpose to pay and play an MMOrpg is because of the ability to do things with other people, if I preferred to do everything alone and play the game with content easily suited for my soloing, I would just stick to a single player RPG... maybe find one that allows 2 player mode so I can play with a friend.  But, I would not pay to play each month.

With that, I accepted that it would take me longer to level up, despite the more difficulties I would face.  But, how was the game ruined for me?  Simple, each day a player could do a daily for a flashpoint.  Many soloers would try to do a quick run and get out.  They don't care about killing bonus bosses or hell, some of them did not even care if they needed stuff they could not even use, because they know they will not be required to group so they do not need to be a reputable player.

Getting past all of that, I got to 50 and began raiding and pvping.  I could not get past the fact that PvP gear was usable in PvE.  In fact, you could obtain the pvp gear much faster.  Cent was comparable to tionese, champ was comparable to columni, and gladiator was comparable to gladiator.  Each case the pve was slightly (very slightly) better.

This ruined the game for me, because despite the fact that I was now in end game raiding (I understand it was early still) but people who simply soloed were better geared than I was by raiding everytime I was able to. 

I do not believe soloers ruin the game.  Every game I have played had soloers.  But in the good games, it was more efficient to group than it was to solo, unless you were just very good and even then you had to find an area that suited your solo playstyle... which was limited.

Edit: If a game focuses on soloing, then the content will be too easy for a grouper.  (In this case the point of grouping is not there)

If a game focuses on grouping it will be more difficult to solo, and easier for a grouper.    (In this case grouping makes it easier, but soloing will provide a challenge, this is what makes a game good. (Having options that make sense)

Amen. I am a soloer as well. I don't want a damn thing handed to me. I want to work for it. I totally agree with everything you said. MMO means a multiplayer game, not massively have to gorup multiplayer. I don't play single player rpgs cause after you beat the game that's it. I rather play a game with a ever growing huge world. It's cheaper and I can play more and longer. 60 dollars for a single player rpg game I'll finish in 30 hours, then it sits on the shelf forever.

Originally posted by Harkur

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

Allowing solo is allowing a default for the game to be playable/enjoyable in the absence of the above being successfully answered. It could be argued some modern mmorpgs have allowed solo to creep into mmorpgs as de facto rather than default, but that is tangent to the main consideraton it needs be permissible/viable option for positive reasons as Jeff Strain reasons but also for shoulder the deficiency of the above.

 

This brings up an interesting point, at least interesting to me.

 

The whole "modern MMOs have allowed solo play to creep in"  thing. 

 

Horse-hockey.  While many people were playing "group or fail" in EQ1, many others were playing in an open-world (no zone walls) largely unstructured mostly sandbox named Asheron's Call.  People like me.  Yes, there was absolutely content that had to be grouped for.  But leveling to max while solo, and obtaining damned good gear along the way, was not only possible but routine.  The community rocked.  (Ok, Darktide was one of the first MMORPG ffa PvP cesspools but hey, some great gaming happened there too) Player-run market towns like Arwic (before it became Charwic) were epic.

So, don't tell me you can't have a great community in a game that can be laregly solo'd.  Tell me you don't know how to do that, because that's what it boils down to.

I play mostly solo now, and my MMOing at the moment is EvE and only EvE.  But I ran a large guild in Asheron's Call, I co-GMd a guild in DAoC, I was a guild officer in many games along the way.  I get community, I enjoy community, and I used to group constantly, now I group when I have to.  I still enjoy the community, and I don't feel that designers need to give me anything I don't earn.  I'm a solo'er now, deal with it.

To all of you "group or gtfo out of my MMOs because you are ruining them!" fanatics:  realize that you are in the minority now, and that you were never the only game in town.   MMOs are now, and have always been, businesses.  If you want a modern, niche, Group or Fail game go convince a small studio to make and run one for you or roll on an EQ classic server.

The genre has moved on, for the most part, and it understands where the money is.  And that's where it's going to go.

 

I disagree. 

EQ1 was not group or gtfo.  EQ1 simply made it so hardcore gamers progressed faster and easier than a casual gamer.   When I first started, I was very casual... I was limited to playing once or twice a week at up to 3 hours a week.  So, once I got the hang of the game, I rerolled a mage, because of the ability to solo.  I soloed a lot, because if it took me 30 minutes to find a group and I have 1 hour to play, I just wasted half my xp time.  So instead, I soloed in zones while LFG.

It was better xp than grouping per kill, but less efficient because I could not continuosly kill nor could I kill faster.  As I was able to play more, I grouped more, even on my mage. I was content knowing I may have to go to lower level mobs to solo.  I was content knowing, if I wanted to kill a named I may have to get a few levels higher than I would if I farmed it with a group...

I could have less chance of getting my item at lower level because more people are rolling for it.  Or I could have a greater chance of getting it by soloing, but the downside is I have to wait until I can solo it.

What could I not do as a soloer?  Raid.  That is how it should be.  And I should not be able to obtain raid gear quality by soloing.

You're taking the approach that the amount of solo content somehow equals developer focus, despite the fact that group / raid content is qualitatively better, more interesting and the most rewarding, while solo content tends to be dull, bland and not even remotely comeptitive in regards to rewards.